Gen. Martin Dempsey, the senior ranking member of the U.S. armed forces, spoke before the Senate Appropriations Committee Wednesday on Capitol Hill in Washington, saying that the United States’ “national security interest (is) to counter (ISIS) where we find them.”

The White House meeting sounded more like a listening session for the top Republicans and Democrats in the House and Senate about options for helping Iraq’s embattled Shiite government halt the lightning advance of Sunni Islamist fighters toward Baghdad that Obama is considering…

While the White House statement emphasized Obama would continue to consult with Congress, Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell of Kentucky said the President “basically just briefed us on the situation in Iraq and indicated he didn’t feel he had any need for authority from us for the steps that he might take.”

“I certainly believe that the president always has to get congressional approval,” said Kaine, a member of the Foreign Relations Committee. “If there’s an emergency, you may need to come back and get a congressional ratification. That’s the way the process is supposed to work.”…

Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.), a possible presidential candidate in 2016, said Obama could not rely on a resolution passed more than 10 years ago, when many members of Congress were not yet elected.

“A new war has started, and if people want to go be involved in a new war, the job of Congress is to vote on it,” he said. “I don’t think you can have a Congress of 10 years ago make a decision for the people here 10 years later.”

Iranian General Hassan Firouzabadi, chief of staff of the country’s armed forces, slammed the United States and blamed former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for sponsoring terrorist groups in Iraq and the region.

“By any meddling and military intervention in Iraq, the Americans are seeking to attain ungracious goals, at the top of which undermining the elections in Iraq, and the crocodile tears of the Americans should not receive any attention, as they are still the allies of the sponsors and supporters of terrorists in the region,” Firouzabadi was quoted as saying in Tehran on Tuesday by the country’s state-run press.

***

David Petraeus, the former commander of coalition forces in Iraq, has issued a stark warning to those advocating U.S. military intervention against ISIS militias bearing down on Baghdad…

The former head of the CIA and one of the most highly respected generals in modern U.S. warfare said it was only wise to offer military support if the political conditions were exactly right in Iraq, a scenario that is virtually impossible to imagine in the near-future. “This cannot be the United States being the air force for Shia militias, or a Shia on Sunni Arab fight,” he said…

“If America is to support then it would be in support of a government against extremists rather than one side of what could be a sectarian civil war,” he said at the Margaret Thatcher Conference on Liberty in London. “It has to be a fight of all of Iraq against extremists, who happen to be Sunni Arabs, but extremists that are wreaking havoc on a country.”

***

Gratuitous finger-pointing is what Iraq War advocates do. They have yet to take responsibility for what will go down as one of the most horrific foreign policy debacles in American history.

Let’s be clear: What is happening in Iraq is the fault of the George W. Bush administration and those who agitated for invasion. According to the Council on Foreign Relations, ISIS “emerged in the ashes of the U.S.-led invasion to oust Hussein.” So, no invasion, no ISIS overrunning Iraq. Minus the invasion, there wouldn’t have been Maliki’s Shiite government isolating Iraq’s Sunni and Kurdish minorities, leading to an entirely foreseeable sectarian war.

As horrible as Hussein was, he ran a secular government by Middle Eastern standards. Since the U.S. invasion, Iraq has become more theocratic. More than half a million Christians have fled the country in fear for their lives. Now we have the specter of a radical theocracy governed by sharia law wherever ISIS gains control. These are exactly the kind of fanatics the Iraq War proponents promised to eradicate. Instead, the war has spawned a new and reportedly even more barbaric enemy set on establishing a global caliphate.

Yes, Obama presided over the withdrawal American forces from Iraq, and announced a timetable for their pullout from Afghanistan. Still, he seeks to project U.S. force around the globe, regardless of priority or magnitude of crisis, as if our military was a hybrid of cops and Hessians. No matter seems too small for Obama’s attention, even if the upside for America is negligible or nonexistent…

To top it off, an American drone might kill a Sunni militant who was seeking to topple the Iranian-backed Shia-led Iraqi regime. But, if that same Sunni rebel turned westward to Syria he’d be—armed with American weapons—to take on Syria’s Iranian-backed government…

Faced with a Middle East in flames, Republicans would do well to hold extensive hearings on what was the president is thinking and hold the administration’s feet to the fire. The Democrats can respond, of course, that it was Bush’s fault, and they would be right. But strictly speaking, that’s not the contemporary GOP’s problem—unless, of course, it chooses to take on the defense of Bush’s actions of 10 years ago as part of its mandate. And that would be both bad policy and politics.

***

The Republican Party has a long-standing philosophy about welfare. It goes like this: People take responsibility only if they must. The more we intervene to prop them up, the less they do for themselves. We can’t save them from their bad choices. They have to face the consequences and adjust their behavior accordingly.

Carried to its extreme, this philosophy can become a rationale for neglect. But at its core, it’s true. It’s one reason why the welfare reforms of the 1990s didn’t produce the disaster many liberals predicted…

Republicans say ISIS is filling the “vacuum” left by Obama’s withdrawal. But the vacuum—which is really just another name for how the world works when we’re not there—affects other parties, too. As ISIS advances on Baghdad, Shiite militias are assembling. Iran is stepping in. Turkey may be next. The conflict could explode into sectarian civil war, though some Shiite leaders are trying to avoid that. But what’s striking is how quickly, in our absence, the threatened elements of Iraqi society and the region are mobilizing to stop ISIS. They’re doing it because they have to. If they don’t, nobody else will.

***

Deciding that the Syrian government, as bad as it is, was still better than the alternative of ISIS profoundly missed the point. As long as we allow the Syrian government to continue perpetrating the worst campaign of crimes against humanity since Rwanda, support for ISIS will continue. As long as we choose Prime Minister Maliki over the interests of his citizens, all his citizens, his government can never be safe.

President Obama should be asking the same question in Iraq and Syria. What course of action will be best, in the short and the long term, for the Iraqi and Syrian people? What course of action will be most likely to stop the violence and misery they experience on a daily basis? What course of action will give them the best chance of peace, prosperity and a decent government?

The answer to those questions may well involve the use of force on a limited but immediate basis, in both countries. Enough force to remind all parties that we can, from the air, see and retaliate against not only Al Qaeda members, whom our drones track for months, but also any individuals guilty of mass atrocities and crimes against humanity. Enough force to compel governments and rebels alike to the negotiating table. And enough force to create a breathing space in which decent leaders can begin to consolidate power.

***

Iraq wasn’t about al Qaeda before. It is now…

Acknowledging that reality does not mean the neoconservatives who criticized the 2011 pullout have been right all along. It’s their blunderbuss invasion that cracked open Iraq’s sectarian divides, and we have no obligation to accept their Johnny-One-Note militarism as the easy answer today. Replicating the mistakes of 2003 with another round of bloody unilateralism may heighten global suspicion of American imperialism, which is exactly what makes al Qaeda thrive…

An armed response would not be a betrayal of principle for the man who became president because he presciently declared in 2002 that Iraq would be a “dumb war.” Recall what Obama also said that day 12 years ago: “After Sept. 11, after witnessing the carnage and destruction, the dust and the tears, I supported this administration’s pledge to hunt down and root out those who would slaughter innocents in the name of intolerance, and I would willingly take up arms myself to prevent such tragedy from happening again.”

That is exactly what he is trying to prevent today.

***

There are those who think that the region as a whole may be starting to go through something similar to what Europe went through in the early 17th century during the Thirty Years’ War, when Protestant and Catholic states battled it out. This is a conflict which is not only bigger than al-Qa’eda and similar groups, but far bigger than any of us. It is one which will re-align not only the Middle East, but the religion of Islam…

Saudi officials more recently called for the Iranian leadership to be summoned to the International Criminal Court in The Hague for war crimes. Then, just the month before last, as the P5+1 countries eased sanctions on Iran after arriving at an interim deal in Geneva, Saudi saw its greatest fear — a nuclear Iran — grow more likely. And in the immediate aftermath of the Geneva deal, Saudi sources darkly warned of the country now taking Iranian matters ‘into their own hands’. There are rumours that the Saudis would buy nuclear bombs ‘off the shelf’ from their friends in Pakistan if Iran ever reaches anything like the nuclear threshold. In that case, this Westphalian solution could be prefaced with a mushroom cloud…

The war between Saudi and Iran has already reached America’s shores. It has been devastatingly fought out across Syria’s wasted land. In fact the only place where it has yet to strike meaningfully is on the soil of the main protagonists. If what has been happening so far looks bloody, it is the work of an Armageddon-ist to consider what will happen when those gloves come off. In a region replete with bitter rivalries and irreconcilable ambitions, that will be perhaps the ultimate clarification.

He met a fellow Yank and a Hollander @ his hostel and they went to a bar to watch World Cup action. I’m glad that he’s having fun. he hits Vienna on Saturday, Basel next Wednesday-and then back to England next Sat.
His visits to Holocaust sites are ripping me apart-reminding me of who I am.
I turn 44 this year.Time for some re-examination.

“We believe that Maliki’s sectarianism and exclusion of Sunnis has led to the insurgency we are seeing,” said a senior Arab official. “He unfortunately managed to unite ISIS with the former Baathists and Saddam supporters.”

President Barack Obama and his national security aides are in deliberations over the creation of a new strategy for stabilizing Iraq, with a clear road map expected in the coming days.

Mr. Obama has discussed the possibility of using air power and drone strikes to weaken ISIS, say U.S. officials. But he has been particularly focused on developing a political process to heal the widening rift between Iraq’s Shiite and Sunni communities that officials see as feeding the support for ISIS’s insurgency in western Iraq.

Mr. Obama met Wednesday with the top Republican and Democratic members of the House and Senate to update them on administration plans.

Sen. Mitch McConnell (R., Ky.), the chamber’s minority leader, issued a statement afterward, criticizing Mr. Obama’s past policies on Iraq and saying it was important to apply the experience to the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan in two years.

Rep. Nancy Pelosi (D., Calif.), the House Democratic leader, said Mr. Obama didn’t need any further legislative authority to pursue options in Iraq. But officials said Mr. Obama told the congressional leaders he would continue to consult with them.

Earlier Wednesday, Defense Secretary Chuck Hagel and Gen. Martin Dempsey, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, cautioned senators at a hearing against expecting quick U.S. military strikes, because of the difficulty of developing targets. “It’s not as easy as looking at an iPhone video of a convoy and then immediately striking it,” said Gen. Dempsey.

To support the administration approach, Secretary of State John Kerry and his aides have consulted with Iraq’s neighbors—particularly Saudi Arabia, Turkey and Iran—to find a formula to create a more inclusive government in Baghdad.

The State Department’s point man on Iraq, Deputy Assistant Secretary Brett McGurk, has concurrently been meeting with Iraqi politicians and religious leaders in Baghdad to promote this political process, say U.S. officials.

The State Department wouldn’t say if the Obama administration was specifically discussing the issue of removing Mr. Maliki during these talks. But Arab diplomats and policy advisors who have talked with the White House in recent days said it was clear the administration was “casting about for somebody better” than Mr. Maliki.

Mr. Kerry was even more pointed in his criticism of Mr. Maliki on Monday, arguing his removal could help stabilize Iraq’s sectarian divide.

“If there is a clear successor, if the results of the election are respected, if people come together with the cohesiveness necessary to build a legitimate government that puts the reforms in place that people want, that might wind up being very salutatory,” he told Yahoo News.

Mr. Maliki’s State of Law Party won a plurality of seats, 94 out of 350, in Iraq’s parliamentary elections. The country is waiting for Iraq’s Supreme Court to ratify the results, after which the parliamentary speaker will call on the leadership of Mr. Maliki’s party to form a new government.

Mr. Maliki is still viewed as in a strong position to retain his post. In fact, many Shiite leaders have rallied behind the Iraqi prime minister in the wake of the ISIS gaining control of the cities of Mosul, Tal Afar and Tikrit in recent days and launching an offensive on Baghdad.

Still, the formation of governments in Iraq has seen significant horse-trading—and the involvement of American, Iranian and Arab diplomats—since the overthrow of Saddam Hussein in 2003.

The Shiite politician Ayad Allawi’s political party won the most seats in 2010. But he failed to form a government after some Shiite and Kurdish parties backed Mr. Maliki.

Current and former U.S. officials said Iran will be crucial a player in efforts to form a new government in Baghdad and potentially remove Mr. Maliki, and will push for any new government to be friendly to its interests.

Tehran and Washington are Iraq’s most important diplomatic, economic and military partners. And both the U.S. and Iran have pledged in recent days to support the Iraqi government in its fight against the ISIS.

Former U.S. officials said both the George W. Bush and Obama administrations communicated regularly with Iranian diplomats in Baghdad during the political deliberation in 2006 and 2010 that previously elected Mr. Maliki. Deputy Secretary of State William Burns discussed Iraq’s political reform process with Iranian officials on Monday in Vienna, according to the State Department.

“Iran can play a positive role,” said Zalmay Khalilzad, the U.S. ambassador to Iraq from 2005 to 2007. “Sometimes, on a tactical level, there can be an opportunity for cooperation. It’s happened in the past.”

The sequencing of the U.S.’s deliberations with Iraq and Iran will be crucial in determining whether progress can be made in driving ISIS out of the territories it’s already claimed, according current and former U.S. officials.

Mr. Obama has signaled that he’s going to hold back on launching any major military operations inside Iraq until he get assurances from the Iraqi government that it will take meaningful steps to reach out to its Sunni community.

But there are concerns within the administration that ISIS could continue to make military gains as Mr. Maliki and other Iraqi politicians jostle for power in Baghdad.

“The question is if the U.S. needs to do something [militarily] while waiting for a political settlement,” said Mr. Khalilzad.

Things were so wonderful at HotAir today. Great articles, great commenters, no people screaming abusive, sexist insults. The Matthews news would really complement things nicely. (Of course, there is not such good news coming out of Iraq, so it’s not all good news.)

I feel much the way Scrumpy does. However, I ahven’t quit (yet) and I don’t see any trolls. On Bush v. Obama when it comes to Iraq. Like any conflict, you haven’t lost until you quit. Bush didn’t quit.

His visits to Holocaust sites are ripping me apart-reminding me of who I am.
I turn 44 this year.Time for some re-examination.
annoyinglittletwerp on June 18, 2014 at 10:53 PM

ALT, I’m glad Spawn is making friends and having fun :-D

I’m not in your position regarding the sites Spawn’s seen, but try to look at those pictures as LESSONS, rather than dwell on what you’re reading into them. Man can be a beast most cruel, but learning from such episodes in history (so we do NOT repeat them) can be much more rewarding than letting it eat you up.

If any of you missed this epic beatdown of Libby earlier today, here it is again, from the thread “NBC/WSJ poll finds 54% have no confidence in Obama’s leadership”:

Why aren’t we comparing Obama’s 2014 numbers with Bush’s numbers in the lead up to the 2006 midterm?

libfreeordie on June 18, 2014 at 8:50 AM

Golly, you mean like this?

In terms of competency, Obama now ranks below Bush at the analogous point in time of his predecessor’s presidency. Post-Katrina Bush had a 53/46 rating for competency, while it’s an even split at 50/50 for Obama. Thirty-one percent say Obama isn’t competent at all, compared to 24% for Bush in the same time frame, and that’s a ten-point increase for Obama from last June.

Man, I wish I’d written that. Oh wait, I did — right above the comments section.

I’m sorry, but I can’t let this go. “Post-Katrina Bush” is not an analagous point in his presidency. Katrina was in August of 2005, are you saying that those numbers represent an average of Bushs’s competency rating from August 2005 to December 2008? Well to compare a 3 years average to a single poll isn’t very good methodology. Or did you find one particularly good number Bush’s post-Katrina competency polling? Either way, an “analagous” poll number would be polls from the summer of 2006. Or even an average of Bush polling in June of 2006.

No — if you follow the links, you’ll find that this is a result from the March 2006 NBC/WSJ poll, which was the closest in time to the same period in the Obama presidency of that series, which is what I wrote. That’s “post-Katrina.”

Seriously, try reading for comprehension, and if you have questions, click the links and check the source data. You’ll find that a lot easier than making your reading comprehension difficulties so public.

I just want to take this opportunity to say how much I admire and appreciate all the great work Allahpundit does each and every day for the Quote of the Day series. He always highlights the key parts of the articles and does a great job of getting a full spectrum of current views on each topic. The man is a treasure, and I think all of us regular readers have benefitted greatly from reading his work.

(waving) at my great Northern friend. The updates….esh makes me want to hit my head against the wall.

I am reading that the F 18s are a show of force. Shouldn’t O have sent them last week then? I just love /sarc this Leading From Behind.

CoffeeLover on June 18, 2014 at 11:01 PM

Fox News announced that on the big show. Of course, the F/A-18’s they are sending from a carrier in the Gulf are not really recon equipped are they? The way they put it on the news, Barry’s admin decided to fly the “much louder” F/A-18’s over Iraq to “give the ISIL something to think about”, like the planes would scare the terrorists into retreat.

Strangely, we were mocked when we suggested that F-16’s from Italy could have done the same thing over Benghazi.

My mother always wanted me to make Aliyah-I have automatic Israeli citizenship if I want it, as does Spawn-and now I’m seriously considering it…of course there’s one major problem….which is that I’m like married.
If nothing else, I’d like to visit next year. Maybe sob my way through the Yad Vashem and visit the Kotel.

Someone pointed it out earlier and I have noticed it in the past. Libfree let’s someone post under his name. That is quite clear. The writing style in the above post is different than what we are used to. Still love the takedown. Libfree is an idiot either way.

The way they put it on the news, Barry’s admin decided to fly the “much louder” F/A-18′s over Iraq to “give the ISIL something to think about”, like the planes would scare the terrorists into retreat.
Strangely, we were mocked when we suggested that F-16′s from Italy could have done the same thing over Benghazi.
slickwillie2001 on June 18, 2014 at 11:08 PM

Did zero also tell them to fly low at night, so ISIS/ISIL will think they’re a squadron?